Re:A 4-month online dating experiment using 10 fictional sin...
by lopmotr on Wednesday November 25, 2020 @12:57AM
(#25206378)
Sure but it's going to be 10x harder and still not be as successful as people who were just born with attractive genes and did nothing.
Re:A 4-month online dating experiment using 10 fictional sin...
by asdffdsa on Wednesday November 25, 2020 @03:18PM
(#25213807)
"people who were just born with attractive genes"
Have you ever met someone who seemed naturally good looking? Usually they care a lot about clothes, accessories, and are passionate about style and appearance. One guy I know always enjoys going "thrifting" at secondhand stores, and is incredibly enthusiastic and helpful if you go with him. So his success is related as much to work as it is to luck.
There's a lot that goes into being attractive in the same way there's a lot that goes into being "smart" (e.g. someone with a phd may be born smart but they worked incredibly hard to earn that phd).
Re:A 4-month online dating experiment using 10 fictional sin...
by baccheion on Saturday November 28, 2020 @05:13AM
(#25236696)
People are and can be naturally good looking. Many override average/mediocre genetics with makeup, money, status, gym time, etc. Unless extremely disfigured by genes, being appealing (enough) is a matter of time and effort.
Dating's not easy, but it gets much easier if you improve your life holistically (and especially the things you are weakest in). Photos are poor quality? Dress like a slob? Overweight? Aren't witty? These are all things that can be improved with effort, even if it is challenging to do so.
It's really easy to come up with some explanation for a lack of dating success, especially a generalized fatalistic thesis from a limited data sample; it's much more difficult to take some time to figure out why you're unsuccessful, and then put in the work to fix it.
My 2c. Good luck